On 29 April 2014 13:28, Hadi Moshayedi Wrote,
This looks like a great improvement. Repeating Nicolas's question, do you have
a real-world example of such joins?
I can think of some scenario where, user need to self-join and find the
comparison with other tuples, For example, list down all the
Hello Dilip,
Query: select count(*) from t1,t2 where t1.bt2.b and t1.b 12000;
Test Result:
Nest Loop Join with Index Scan : 1653.506 ms
Sort Merge Join for (seq scan) : 610.257ms
This looks like a great improvement. Repeating Nicolas's
On 10 April 2014 14:21, I wrote
I shall perform some more test, for that I need to do some more hack in
the code and I will post them soon..
Test Scenario:
Create table t1 (a int, b int);
Create table t2 (a int, b int);
Random record inserted in t1 and t2, as per
2014-04-09 Dilip kumar dilip.ku...@huawei.com:
I would like to propose a New merge join algorithm for optimizing non ‘=’
operators. (‘’, ‘=’, ‘’, ‘=’)
Do you have a real-world example use case of such joins, to offset the
extra planner time that will likely have to be paid (even for queries
On 09 April 2014 13:31, Nicolas Barbier Wrote
Do you have a real-world example use case of such joins, to offset the
extra planner time that will likely have to be paid (even for queries
for which the functionality ends up not being used)?
I guess there might be queries that join on “values
Dilip kumar dilip.ku...@huawei.com writes:
On 09 April 2014 13:31, Nicolas Barbier Wrote
Do you have a real-world example use case of such joins, to offset the
extra planner time that will likely have to be paid (even for queries
for which the functionality ends up not being used)?
I think
I would like to propose a New merge join algorithm for optimizing non '='
operators. ('', '=', '', '=')
- Currently Merge join is only supported for '=' operator. For '' or
'' operator it chooses Nest Loop Join, or Nest loop with materialization.
- I think when tuple from
